Let's translate that from feminist-speak to English: If the romance fails, his inadequacy as a man is entirely to blame; you have no responsibility for making it work.Let me translate that back into feminism (this will be like "recursive translation"): You're free to absorb the risk that the right man at the wrong time will be in the wrong place when it's the right time.
If you follow that advice, you're likely to end up alone. Marcotte seems to imagine it will be a consolation that you'll be resentful too.
ADDED: My translation reminds me of the analog of pregnancy and abortion as seen by feminism: You're free to end a healthy pregnancy that comes at the wrong time, but you take the risk that there will be no healthy pregnancy when it's the right time.
You're entitled to your freedom, but freedom can only be exercised in the real world with all its limitations — including nature and, in a free society, the freedom of other people.
Posts
177 comments:
The Weird Sisters in the referenced article are straight out of Portlandia!
Stir in a little Amanda Marcotte!
Voila! Udder madness!
Killer opening post, Althouse. I predict 300 comments!
Hit 'em with your best shot!
Good recursion. Marcotte's wrong in any case.
Good recursion. Marcotte's wrong in any case.
Is John Edwards still available?
This whole controversey blows my mind. It's true, if you find someone wonderful, but give them up because your 24 or "I have to live my life first/get to X in my career before I get married" means you may not find that great person is available or someone as terrific as that person when you are "ready." That goes for men and women, by the way.
Why is this so controversial? It's common sense!
If he's good enough to marry, he'll almost certainly not still be around when you're ready to make that leap.
A fair part of this depends upon whether one hews to the "one perfect person" theory of love, or the "many wonderful people" theory. If you believe that there is one perfect person out there for you, then any time you meet someone who might be it, you are put to the hard choice of whether you want to sacrifice everything to mate with that person or not. If you, and they turn out not to be so perfect, you may be resentful in light of what you sacrificed.
If you believe there are many wonderful people in the world with whom you could spend good-sized chunks of your life with, then what you may have to give up to be with any one of such persons is less of a crisis.It also helps to think that not every relationship that ends before the death of either person involved therefore counts as a failure.
As a bonus once one has a solid base of experience, and meets up with someone who is, in a special way, more wonderful than his or her predecessors, it's easier to recognize & appreciate the difference.
In any event, it doesn't seem to have that much to do with how feminist anybody is.
Isn't taking relationship advice from Amanda Marcotte like opening up the Jeffrey Dahmer cookbook when you need a new recipe?
"If he's good enough to marry, he'll still be around when you're ready to make that leap."
Maybe I'm in the overly mobile cohort, but why would you assume any such thing? After graduation, people get jobs and move all over the place.
In the past year, I don't think I've seen a single girl from high school, college, or grad school. I saw one girl from my first postdoc for one day when she was in town for a conference.
The odds are different if you go to a state school and settle down nearby. But going the grad school route is murder on long term friendships.
I'm available!
Well, not really, if you count my girlfriend.
But, if anybody can produce a buxom Filipina in the age range from 35-50, preferably with an RN and a green card, I could be had.
Maybe he'll wait but odds are he won't. Why should who wants to get married wait for years in the hope that one day she'll want to marry him? She's made it quite clear that his wants are not important.
I sometimes hear women complaining about how there are no good men out there. Perhaps they kicked aside a good man while pursuing their own interests only to find that man switched to someone who wouldn't make him wait. Or perhaps he just decided that she wasn't worth waiting for. No, that's silly. Every woman is a precious jewel, a unique snowflake or princess whose every desire becomes a man's command.
Hope she enjoys her cats.
Some dishes are better eaten hot.
By the way, no one said GET MARRIED AT 22, but just be aware that life does not follow a schedule. Sometimes you do find the love of your life at 35, but if you found him/her at 25 and broke it off, would you regret it at 35?
When I was in high school, all the girls had a schedule of, "college, career, married at 28, baby at 30." Unrealistic and life doesn't work by appointment on a schedule.
This was my thought process in 1974 at 21: "A very attractive woman is willing to sleep with me on a regular basis. It has never happened before and is unlikely to happen again. Marry her".
Working out ok so far.
When I was in high school, all the girls had a schedule of, "college, career, married at 28, baby at 30." Unrealistic and life doesn't work by appointment on a schedule.
There's an old saying that "man plans, God laughs."
Same applies to women, I think.
We all make choices - own them and move on.
Hamsters gonna hamst.
Marcotte seems to think that marriage is all about having children.
"Some dishes are better eaten hot"
True. She will become less hot with each year of aging and thus face a continual reduction of value in the sexual marketplace.
One of those cold hard facts of life that feminists are in denial of.
Even by the standards of someone who once thought John Edwards should be President, this is delusional stuff.
I never intended to get married thinking no one would have me, then at 26, I met a person who changed all that. Nearly fifty years later I am still with that person.
Don't pass up the chance.
This just in from the Gods of the Copy-book Headings: "She who will not when she may/ When she will, she shall have nay."
yes ladies, take your relationship and life advice from a 36 year old ball busting spinster like Marcotte. she has your best interests at heart and is in no way trying to compensate for her choices and outcomes.
Yea, I'm sure he'll be around. There aren't any other women out there except you. He'll just hang out and wait for you because you are so awesome, and he can't do any better becau...
Now if one of the girls on "Buck Wild" said that everyone would assume she's a stupid backwoods idiot, but this girl obviously attended a university. She's an worldly intellectual with writing skills, and perspective.
I'd be gone by dawn, just to avoid hearing her voice the next day.
Query: with a majority of commenters on this site being men of a certain age, I wonder what interest they find with feminist issues (for, against or push) brought up for discussion by the Professor? Translation - Why would men give a flying fuck about any of this anyways? Shouldn't men have manly lives divorced (as it were) from discussion of femisnist musings amongst themselves? That said, think I'll go drive a sailboat to the limit of it's design capabilities and scare the shit out of myself at 8 knots...
If there a government bailout for feminist heartbreak?
I look forward to around 3:30 each day when I can take a few minutes and read James Taranto.
You marry the person who is most available at the time when you are most vulnerable.
Somebody else said that, but it seems to have a certain internal validity. Marcotte is saying that young women aren't really vulnerable, however they may feel. Some are, some aren't. Those that are but pretend otherwise are those who regret later. Same goes for men.
What I expect.to advise my kids around age 20: "Life is better married. Find someone kind, who is nice to look at,with good character and solid values, firm on principles but flexible on everything else, and get this show on the road."
I'm sorry, but is this one of those parochial Northeastern teapot tempests?
I got married just out of college and so did virtually everyone I know. We graduated in December and got married the same day, then spent the next year trucking around the South to one wedding after another. This was not the stone age; I'm 35. My wife's sister, now 25, and all her friends seemed to do the same thing a decade later. Certainly the campus chapel gets extremely busy in May and June; on the day my sister-in-law was married, she only had it for three hours because it was hosting two other weddings.
I wonder what interest they find with feminist issues (for, against or push) brought up for discussion by the Professor?
I have daughters. I don't want them to follow this false god. I want them to follow the wisdom of their father and grandfathers. It's best for them.
This is a religious war. It isn't about "science."
I never met that person for me, and the only close ones were already married, and I'm not even very picky. I'd say, if you are sure you found them, don't dare let them get away, because they will, and the clock just keeps going faster and faster. You will never get the years back that you could have shared.
Larry J said, "There's an old saying that "man plans, God laughs. Same applies to women, I think."
Yes, but women's bio-clock tick louder.
And if she waits too long, the men who are left will be geezers looking for a Nurse with a Purse.
CatherineM said...
Why is this so controversial? It's common sense!
The competing issue is kids who know little to nothing about relationships believing their first puppy love should/will result in marriage. Sometimes kids hang on too long because they're afaid of the "other". This fear should not be a factor in your life decision.
I would apply this sentiment to high school, but with the infantalization of adults it seems to have graduated to college and beyond. The maturity of the person should be the key, but we seem to have largely skipped over this and applied the rule more broadly.
Your recursive translation is what Marcotte should have said, but not what she did.
Marcotte is claiming that if he's the *right* guy (meaning, he really really really loves you) he'll stick around indefinitely, until YOU make up your mind. Should he move on, well then, he *obviously* wasn't Mr. Right. Circular reasoning.
"But, if anybody can produce a buxom Filipina in the age range from 35-50, preferably with an RN and a green card, I could be had."
Filipina? I do know of a cute open-minded Flip-Inga. Let me see if I can get her email address for you.
Illustrating again why women make less than men.
Women have careers, men have jobs.
If he's good enough to marry, he'll still be around when you're ready to make that leap.
If he's good enough to marry, he will have gotten tired of you jerking his chain and screwing around with his head and emotions and will have married someone else or moved on.
These women seem to think that men are commodities just sitting on the shelf waiting, at their convenience, to be purchased. Sorry ladies....YOUR "sell by date" is really creeping up on you.
Most people will blame all kinds of external things for not finding someone. Some will blame themselves. The later are the honest ones.
"I look forward to around 3:30 each day when I can take a few minutes and read James Taranto."
Me too. Insightful writer. The headlines of the day bring a smile to my face.
Who around here is at peak nubility? Jes' wonderin'...
Àlso keep in mind that Mr Right is going to deal with other women and is unlikely to be the same guy you knew years earlier. If he dealt with the likes of Marcotte he is likely to jaded as all hell.
1) Tarantino is right.
2)Portia said...
I never intended to get married thinking no one would have me, then at 26, I met a person who changed all that. Nearly fifty years later I am still with that person.
Don't pass up the chance.
Speaking from the experience of having passed up the chance 4 times Portia is also correct.
" I do know of a cute open-minded Flip-Inga."
A perfect match, of shared tenderness. I'm getting a little teary-eyed just thinking about it.
And if she waits too long, the men who are left will be geezers looking for a Nurse with a Purse.
Yes, ladies, there is an Old Dawg in your future!
Filipina? I do know of a cute open-minded Flip-Inga. Let me see if I can get her email address for you.
This is a possibility only in one of those parallel universes physicists have been talking so much about!
Everyone likes to generalize.
"This works for me, it'll work for you!"
Only that's never quite true. We hear the success stories, because they're the ones who tell the stories.
In Christian colleges, where I went and now teach, the marry young philosophy is entirely at work. How does it work out? It's mixed. Some marriages really work, I know a lot that don't.
The trouble is there really is perfect guy or perfect woman to marry, there's only the willingness to be married to a particular guy or a particular woman and work through all the ups and downs. And when you marry young you will have a lot more of those.
Because those women who marry young and have kids young who wanted a career? They'll find themselves in their late 20s entirely unsatisfied and wander. Everyone thinks the problems will be fixed with the right person or the right career. This external thing that will give meaning to life.
Only it never does. Marry when you can be the right person for someone else, not trying to change them or force them to fit, but someone who you can go through ups and downs, staying committed throughout.
Because when the identity crisis comes, and it always does, you are going to have to wade through that with someone else.
I got married at 34, my wife was 31 and we couldn't be happier with our choices, we both did what we needed to do, got out our angst, pursued our dreams, and then in being married have a much more relaxed time as we don't need the other person to give us meaning. We can just enjoy each other.
TomHynes said...
This was my thought process in 1974 at 21: "A very attractive woman is willing to sleep with me on a regular basis. It has never happened before and is unlikely to happen again. Marry her".
Working out ok so far.
LOL. Me too (1979).
Marcotte is all wrong for most women. Most desirable women are at their best from age 17 to about 25; then they start to lose attractiveness.
Most desirable men actually continue to become more and more desirable from about 20 to 40 (or later) as they (by definition - we're talking about desirable) acquire more money, maturity and power. Meanwhile, their field of play gets larger and larger, unlike most womens'.
" I do know of a cute open-minded Flip-Inga."
A perfect match, of shared tenderness. I'm getting a little teary-eyed just thinking about it.
I'm thinking...more along the lines of the Santa Cruz story from yesterday.
"You're free to absorb the risk that the right man at the wrong time will be in the wrong place when it's the right time."
I'd say that's no small risk, but rather the overwhelming likelihood. Men spend a lot of life screwed up in the head too, so the chances of you meeting, and both having your heads on straight at the same time is a long shot.
I loved the Shaw piece even though the decision to marry early isn't right for everyone. I just like the fact that she's standing up for it as an option that shouldn't be discarded, and she articulates the pros and cons well. It's a healthy discussion because the pendulum has swung from most people marrying young to most people thinking they should wait. One excellent point that Shaw made is that so many young cohabitating couples are playing house while avoiding the resoonsibility of supporting themselves because they don't cleave from their parents. The maturity doesn't come first- it's part of the process that is initiated when you commit to the formation of a new family unit.
Althouse's feminist recirsive translation says
The woman is free to absorb the risk. I don't think that's Marcotte's brand of feminism at all.
MEADE!
Shut up.
Inga, you apparently have never read or seen a production of The Taming of the Shrew.
I see a lot of couples out here on the west coast who marry relatively young (early 20s), but hold off on having kids for years. I have no idea if that's a good plan, but it's very popular among educated couples. Those without college rarely wait - they get married to have kids or vise versa. I don't know who has the better strategy long term.
Tank said...
Most desirable women are at their best from age 17 to about 25; then they start to lose attractiveness.
This may be notionally true on average for people in those age groups. But for many the difference is miniscule over the next two decades at least. It may be downhill, but it's a wonderful ride.
I had a weird conversation with a friend the other day. She (like me) got married a year out of college. She is very abppjly married, as am I. But she said she told her kids not to get married until they are older than she was, like around 30. I told her if I'd heard my husband say same thing like that I'd be crushed.
C Stanley - agree. The comments on slate that disagree are so hostile. Because Shaw has a different view, people get so defensive and yell, "it's not right for everyone." OK, who said it was?
I don't understand how marriage prevents you from going to school, having a career or "pursuing your dreams."
ST, I'm no Maureen O Hara and you're no John Wayne.
Yes I know, The Quiet Man, not The Taming of the Shrew.
I don't understand how marriage prevents you from going to school, having a career or "pursuing your dreams."
My mother lost her factory job at the age of 59.
She passed her LPN boards at the age of 63.
She retired several years ago, involuntarily, at the age of 83.
I agree with you, Paddy O. My experience as a naturalist observing other couples' relationships is that there's just no telling what works and what doesn't work.
Still, I married at 24, and I argued to my wife that we'd be better off not waiting until we were "ready" so that we could bend and mold each other along the way, rather than try to mold a relationship with two stiff branches, so to speak. It's a work in progress. I've known people who married much later and seem to have had great success. I know nothing.
If he's good enough to marry, he'll almost certainly not still be around when you're ready to make that leap.
Bingo, Freeman. The only thing you did wrong was to not italicize and bold the "not".
Of course, Amanda Marcotte is single, and always will be.
I think we have a love match here folks. A lot of passion there.
Bad recursion. Marcotte didn't mention the risk that he'll find someone else while you're still "not ready", because if she did it would completely eviscerate her claim.
Here's the truth: If he's good enough to marry, and he's ready to marry, and you put him off, he'll find someone else who won't. And because he's "good enough to marry", he WILL find someone.
Hadn't commented on this continuing theme/meme before, but I'll just restate my old maxim about everything being a double-edged sword. True enough, it is only in college where one will find such a critical mass of potential mates (of either sex) with the requisite physical desirability, brains and future prospects without having to actually demonstrate "success" in the real world in terms of either accomplishment or long-term compatibility, so this fact argues for early mate selection.
OTOH, as is true and has been pointed out, people grow both personally and professionally very rapidly immediate post-college years and the person one is married to "10 years after" may exhibit a radically different persona than the one one met at the alter years ago and prove wildly divergent from one's values, i.e., basically incompatible. This also very true fact of life argues for waiting until one's personality/tastes fully develops/solidifies as well as those of one's prospective mate in order to insure compatibility.
Shorter version: It's all a crap-shoot..
As Yvonne Brill said, “Good husbands are harder to find than good jobs.”
James Taranto consistently makes me laugh. What a great dinner guest he must be.
Far more interesting than Amanda Marcotte -- 'tho I'd love to have her over to discuss the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case.
If he's good enough to marry, he'll almost certainly still be around when you're ready to make that leap.
Right Mandy!
'Cause that's what men do, what for hideous, stupid women like you to be "ready" to marry us!
Really, we do.
And it is totally a coincidence that the numbered of married men is declining.
It is!
If he is good enough to marry, the sit down and make a plan. Make goals together, and have a DISCUSSION. Have a plan B and C though, too. If plans and differences are deal breakers, move on sooner then later.
If after 18 months of dating, if this isn' t the man you plan on marrying. Break up. It doesn't mean you need to be engaged or married, but don't waste time on a man that has no future.
That may be different while in high school, I really can't wrap my head around it in your 20s and 30s to just hang there for so long, unless your just plan on being companions over married. So I never asked, because it isn't my business. I only question after a bad break up to myself.
Who are these women? Aren't they mostly 3's, sitting in a bar and dismissing the men who are 8's or 9's, thinking they will still be there at closing?
MoDo? Who wants to marry someone who thinks and acts like that?
And to be clear, Amanda Marcotte is fucking hideous.
If you want to do something smart with your life, don't take dating advice from an unly leftist.
ST, I'm no Maureen O Hara and you're no John Wayne.
Speak for yourself.
I am a John Wayne.
To paraphrase Lynn Koplitz;
"When I was in my twenties, I used to go through men like Kleenex. Now, I'm unmarried in my thirties and I'm digging through the garbage can, trying to pull out those little wads of paper to see if any of them are still good...'Where's the one I thought was too nice??? Stupid, stupid, stupid'."
Is Marcotte's point that you don't marry the guy, you live with him, and then realize (together) that you want to marry at some later point?
Are there any women out there who don't read fucking advice columns of any sort?
The last one I met who didn't was my late wife, Myrna.
Independent women are damned hard to find.
PS: A couple of points from the man's perspective:
A friend of mine who once was an accountant at Ford once said: "Women are just like Fords; there's a new model coming off the assembly-line every year."
The counterpoint?
The 28-yr-old top-gun in my UK based Fighter Wing who was Hollywood handsome and married to a red-head who would put Ann Margret in her prime to shame, once told me when I was bragging about (at age 26) enjoying my freedom--and advantages--as a single guy fighter-pilot: "Well, just don't wait until you lose your looks." WORD..
"Independent women are damned hard to find."
Were hard to find maybe.
Now we have the internet.
Taranto notes she was let go from the Edwards campaign and Althouse suggested she was flashing herself before Bill Clinton, both philanderers.
Hilarious.
The personal is political. Sounds like she knows a lot about good men.
The feminist ideal just doesn't make sense from a logic standpoint.
Career:
You are most valuable to your employer with an continuous history of work within your field.
It doesn't matter when you start. You can start at 18, at 25, at 35. At each of these ages, you can be a newbie, put in 40 years of hard work, and reach the top of your game.
Repeat emphasis: it doesn't matter when you start, only that you keep with it once you start, without stopping for even a long rest.
Now: women want to marry someone who is more or better in a mix of several possible attributes:
richer
smarter
more successful
more powerful
older
taller
more experienced
more mature
Men don't think that way, and I think feminists either forget or don't realize that.
So as a woman increases in wealth, power, and experience, her pool shrinks.
In addition, at age 38, many of her male peers will already be married...and they will tend to be the better ones. It isn't true that a man unmarried at an age that a 38 year old woman would want (say, 38 to 45) is not marriage material...but many of them who aren't married at that age are, in fact, people the hypothetical woman wouldn't want. The proportion change is not in her favor.
Marriage is just as important to a successful life of relative wealth and comfort as college, so marriage should be a goal of equal importance to a college degree.
College can be accomplished at any time.
A woman's most fertile time, easiest time to conceive with the least amount of complications and the best chances for a healthy birth are in her 20s.
Fertility starts dropping in the 30s, but drops precipitously after age 35.
At the same time, a 35 year old woman is not as physically attractive as she was when she was 20.
So everything in society, biology, evolution, trends, abilities, etc, says very clearly:
Get married first, then go to college and have your career after your youngest child starts school.
You can get college done online while the kids are young, and enter the workforce for the first time as a 30-year-old. At worst, while still in your mid-30s.
There is plenty of time for an extremely successful 40 year career, unbroken with taking time to find a husband, or having to move to find a husband, or stopping to have kids.
It just makes sense. That's why the Progressives hate it, I guess.
"True enough, it is only in college where one will find such a critical mass of potential mates (of either sex) with the requisite physical desirability, brains and future prospects. . ."
I suppose because the idea that everyone just HAS to go to college has been trickling down through the economic classes, this assertion might seem defensible, but really!
None of the people I know long-term went away to have that "campus experience", some took courses at commuter schools, many didn't go to college at all --- according to you, we all have negative sex appeal, shit for brains, no value as mates, and are doomed to a life failure. Piss off.
Oh yeah, just saw a want ad for cashier at McDonald's, BA required. Bright prospects indeed.
“the grave is a fine and private place, but none do there I think embrace” . “gather ye flowers while ye may”.
BTW, most Filipinas have nice soft breasts.
tits for Titus.
Inga lives in a pineapple under the sink.
Jeez I just saw a picture of Amanda Marcotte...
No wonder she's mad at the world.
Independent women are damned hard to find.
Are you not reading my posts? How about Freeman, Synova, Wyoming Sis, Erika, Renee, Michelle D Thompson to name a few...I'm sure I've missed many others who post here. Independent women, all. And I doubt any are reading advice columns.
@DBQ...
I stand humbly corrected.
But, I haven't actually "met" any of you.
Freeman, Synova, Wyoming Sis, Erika, Renee, Michelle D Thompson
Throwing married women out to bachelors?
Cruel.
Marshal said...
Tank said...
Most desirable women are at their best from age 17 to about 25; then they start to lose attractiveness.
This may be notionally true on average for people in those age groups. But for many the difference is miniscule over the next two decades at least. It may be downhill, but it's a wonderful ride.
Look at it this way, however hot a woman is a age 22, she's going to be less hot (usually quite a bit) at age 38. Meanwhile, her 25-30 year old competition is going to be just as available to a desirable 38 year old man. And I disagree with the idea that most 38year olds are minisculy less hot than they were at 22.
35-45 is the Golden Age for women. That's why I dated them when I was 18.
My wife reads advice columns.
Mainly to laugh at them, tho.
Woman loathes feminism.
""If he's good enough to marry, he'll still be around when you're ready to make that leap.""
Sure he might still be around. He might be married to your sister.
"Freeman, Synova, Wyoming Sis, Erika, Renee, Michelle D Thompson."
--------------------------'
"Throwing married women out to bachelors?"
4/3/13, 11:47 AM
Maybe DBQ is in to swinging? ;)
Little sister don't
Little sister don't
Little sister don't you
Kiss me once or twice
And tell me that it's nice
And then you run
Please little sister
Don't you do
What your big sister done
Feminist begins with "f" which also begins "f*ck off".
Any self respecting man will say exactly that to feminist Marcotte.
"If he's good enough to marry,..."
he will have dumped you a while back.
Tank said...
Look at it this way, however hot a woman is a age 22, she's going to be less hot (usually quite a bit) at age 38.
I think young men think this, I don't find men in that age bracket think this.
I think young women have the same problem as blonds. We've fetishized the symptom (youth, blond hair) so long people have some to substitute the symptom for the fact. Blonds do have an additional drawback - that every unattractive woman in America has died her hair blond drawing down the average - so the comparison isn't exact. But it's still true to a lesser extent.
Shouting Marty: "Hello? Hello, Inga?"
Sounds like Taranto's saying, "The worm is so in awe of you, all you have to do is nod".
Ann Althouse said...
this will be like "recursive translation"
Recursion is a function that calls itself, not one that bounces back and forth.
(I still have flashbacks to DS I)
Phone call:
"Yes, its me. I'm ready now."
"Yes, it has been a long time."
"But I'm 36 now and my blog career is waning so I need you to drop whatever relationships you had since I moved past you. You probably knew it was entirely temporarily until I was ready to commit.. and you return to me."
"Hello? Hello? Are you still there? I hear a woman laughing in the background! Who is she!!"
"Hello? Hello?"
The Kate Bolick article Taranto links to is an incredibly sad indictment of feminism.
Once, in high school, driving home from a family vacation, my mother turned to my boyfriend and me cuddling in the backseat and said, “Isn’t it time you two started seeing other people?”
Wow. Just wow.
I decided to not let my biology dictate my romantic life.
Think about that! It's like saying sex is irrelevant to romance. You're not going to listen to your body, to your biology, to your animal nature? You're going to impose a feminist narrative on the world?
When I was 28, I broke up with my boyfriend. Allan and I had been together for three years, and there was no good reason to end things. To account for my behavior, all I had were two intangible yet undeniable convictions: something was missing; I wasn’t ready to settle down.
Now she's 40 years old. 99% of her eggs are dead. She's very likely not going to have kids.
Do I want children? My answer is: I don’t know.
How has feminism made so many women so clueless? How can you not know that? You literally had decades to think about it, and you still don't know?
I am fully aware that with each passing year, I become less attractive to the men in my peer group, who have plenty of younger, more fertile women to pick from. But what can I possibly do about that?
Nothing, now!
If I find someone I really like being with, and if he and I decide we want a child together, and it’s too late for me to conceive naturally, I’ll consider whatever technological aid is currently available, or adopt (and if he’s not open to adoption, he’s not the kind of man I want to be with).
Geez, you don't even know if you want kids! And you're giving ultimatums about adopting a kid to the hypothetical man who doesn't even exist?
I just find this really, really sad. How can so many women be so oblivious to human sexuality? When you're a young girl, you have all the power. You have all the choices. And yet you're not even thinking about what you're doing?
It's unbelievable. Feminism has made women dumber about their bodies, about their lives, about their own happiness.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-gfxjAaZg0
Garfunkel and Oates 29/31 says it better than anything I can think of.
Wait? He. Be. Gone. Long gone, maybe with a fond memory, but lonnnnnng gonnnnnnnne.
The current theory I'm working on is that women like to live on the edge of what they can achieve.
Meaning, women observe what other women have gotten (husband, career, fame) and, considering themselves extremely skilled at judging and comparing, have a good idea of they should have based on their on self-determined value or quality.
If they get something too easy, they feel unhappy because they could have gotten more. If they try for too much, and don't get it, they feel unhappy because they didn't get what they want (and feel they deserved).
So they push to get the maximum they can get, and they know it is the maximum based on how much they struggle to achieve it.
So in a relationship that could be otherwise peaceful, women cause a struggle in order to get more, and sometimes in order to have some struggle in their lives.
It sounds like women are crazy, but that's my takeaway. It's just how evolutionary pressures have shaped men and women.
You should only take a feminist advice as to what type of cat to buy.
Also vibrators.
Marriage advice...not so much.
Taranto's article on The Princeton Mom is excellent.
You should only take a feminist advice as to what type of cat to buy.
Also vibrators.
Marriage advice...not so much.
Then you've got the opposite scenario. A young woman who stays with the wrong guy for far far too long, expecting marriage, children, an adult life. It's not only young women who are too foolish to make hay while the sun shines.
My daughter was with such a guy, she wasted good years. But God/ or fate, has a way of teaching the right lessons, to those are open to learning. Luckily she met and married the right one shortly thereafter.
Did anyone else roll their eyes at this line?
Women marry later because it makes sense given their own career aspirations
Funny, men seem to be able to marry early and follow career aspirations, and often enjoy a great deal of emotional support from their wives. Of course, men are also often comfortable with the role of breadwinner and with a spouse who is willing to take on a supportive role, for lack of a better phrase.
Maybe if women want to be workaholics (as I am), they should value the men who can support them in that and marry those men as soon as they can (as I did), rather than caling them "beta men" and assuming those guys will stick around waiting, forever. A woman who wants a man who is supportive of her career AND who is more educated, richer, older, and more successful really does "want it all" - and she's not going to find it.
Surfed: What kind of sailboat has a design speed of 8 knots? An El Toro, maybe? :-)
I am interested in these discussions (despite my 50+ years and 25+ years married) because I have a daughter and a son, and various nieces and nephews. Also, I live here.
Marcotte (in the provided quote, at least) is absolutely wrong. I can't even fathom the reasoning process that would lead to that conclusion.
"CatherineM said...
This whole controversey blows my mind. It's true, if you find someone wonderful, but give them up because your 24 or "I have to live my life first/get to X in my career before I get married" means you may not find that great person is available or someone as terrific as that person when you are "ready." That goes for men and women, by the way.
Why is this so controversial? It's common sense!
4/3/13, 9:54 AM "
Clearly, Catherine, because it IS common sense, and they just refuse to be "common". They're just so much better and smarter than that!
Fred Drinkwater said...
I can't even fathom the reasoning process that would lead to that conclusion.
Read the article St Croix linked, but don't focus on the personal story. Instead follow her wishful thinking about a society where women face no sacrifices.
She settles on "we can out-organize men". If women stick together and set rules for men's interactions with women the men will be forced to follow those rules, which of course will include whatever is best for forty something single martyrs to feminism.
@Catherine M:
Why is this so controversial? It's common sense!
Because Marcotte et al also say things like the title (which is what Taranto was translating).
Men don't get tired of waiting and if they did they weren't worth it. That's of why of avoiding common sense and blaming other people for the world not catering to you.
Back in the day miserable spinsters like Mandy became nuns.
I could see her beating the crap out of grammer school boys.
Because boys grow into men and men suck.
She: "When I'm ready you can marry me."
He: "How do I know that you'll be even able to commit yourself? Will 10 to 20 years of shallow, fleeting 'relationships' have created bad mental habits that you cannot change?"
She: "If you're worth marrying you'll put your life on hold while I have fun."
He: "I may be young, but I'm not such a fool as that. Goodbye."
This just in from the Gods of the Copy-book Headings
You made Instapundit!!
Your 15 minutes of fame begins.....now!!
apparently there is no one good enough to marry Marcotte. qualis piscatus pereo.
Marshal: Thanks for reading the article so I don't need to.
In my business we say "Hope is not a Plan."
Wishful Thinking is not a Reasoning Process.
Also:
I have to disagree somewhat with the many comments to the effect that women's "hotness" fades quickly, and that this is a serious problem. As I posted somewhere yesterday, my experience is that as I get older, I find there are more and more attractive "young" women around.
I think young men think this, I don't find men in that age bracket think this.
I'm in the latter age bracket, and I think it. Women in their late 30s aren't even remotely as physically attractive as women in their early 20s.
They are, however, a good deal more interesting to spend time with. Such are the trade-offs in life. :)
The nice thing about marrying young is that a woman is taking a risk on her man. You don't really know if he's going to be rich and successful. You've got all the power--you're beautiful--and he may or may not be successful. So maybe you married well or maybe you didn't. You can't be sure!
When my parents got married (in college) their first home was a trailer. My mom cried every day. But now they are very well off, still married, and happy.
You marry a man before he's rich and successful, it builds a bond.
Holding off on marriage is a strategy designed to increase woman's power. You're not risking your happiness on a young, unknown man.
But of course as you define men as commodities, and you shop for the best one you can possibly get, you run the risk that you too will be a commodity. And your beauty is like an hourglass that is running out of time.
If he's good enought to marry he's not going to wait around for a wishy washy person who wont' commit.
He'll find a person that will and marry that person.
I know four couples, including my husband and I, who decided to get married on their first dates. All are still together. Hm. Just realized that. Two of the couples have been married for decades. Anecdotal but interesting.
I say be decisive. Not necessarily first date decisive, but it seems like it generally doesn't take long to know if you want to marry someone. I think that if the people are specially compatible, they will want to get married RIGHT NOW.
@Freeman,
Charming.
The Gods of the Copy Book Headings -
thank you Bill Whittle for introducing me to it as The Gods of Wisdom & Virtue (changed for rhyming purposes).
Truer words were rarely spoken. Liberals in particular should recite that poem once a day, though being liberals it will go right over their heads, as they are always worshipping the Gods of the Here & Now.
Amanda Marcotte and her ilk are reason enough for me to tell my boys "Dad and I will pay for any college south of the Mason Dixon line, sweeties." Women are thankfully more normal down here.
Whoops forgot to link to Bill:
The Gods of The Copybook Heading(or The Gods of Wisdom & Virtue in his reading)
Lefties really don't get the most valuable concept ever thought up, and mankind's greatest idea: The Golden Rule. Would she be willing to wait for him, if she was ready?
I knew of Marcotte, but just freshened up my knowledge, and she is one ugly person, not physically so much, but the things she has written are some of the ugliest things put out by anyone well known. She has a history of being incredibly foul, and at the same time being totally wrong. Just on John Edwards and The Duke Rape case alone she made a complete fool of herself, and that was just in a single year.
I can see now where she gets what she said here - she's just really dumb. I feel sorry for her now that I remember what she has done with her skills and opportunities. What a waste. Even being a dummy can still allow you to do good work, wisdom is not out of reach for the less intelligent, but she is just overwhelmed by her own bile. I can't believe she can even be with a man from what she's written in the past. She clearly hates men, their nature, their very existence it seems.
I think co-habiting sounds horrible. You're not married, so you're not fully committed, but you have the same home. What if you want to break up? What if you decide you want to date someone else? Do you have to wait for the lease to run out? Find roomates? Until you figure out new living arrangements do you have to listen to the other person yammer at you in your own living room that you shouldn't leave? Bah to all that.
"I know four couples, including my husband and I, who decided to get married on their first dates."
I can imagine that happening, but just barely. I guess I'm not trusting enough or clear enough about what I want, because that would feel crazy to me. I should have dated more, but I'm not even aware of a woman that would get near that reaction. That's either great luck, or it says something great about you and your husband.
Freeman Hunt "I think co-habiting sounds horrible...What if you want to break up? What if you decide you want to date someone else?"
Judging by the kids I knew in the 70's and 80's, the girl* would pretend to be in love until she found a new boyfriend, and then would suddenly move out.
And we shouldn't be too harsh and judgmental about human biology, either.
Beauty is a proxy for being able to have children. That's why young women are hot and old women are not. We think of men lusting after pretty girls as shallow. But it's actually primal and deep.
And women are constantly judging men on our ability to control our environment. Can you do things? Can you accomplish things? Are you successful? Are you wealthy? Do people look up to you?
Women are natural groupies. And this too might seem shallow. And yet women simply want strong, healthy babies. And they want a man who can provide for those babies.
Our biological urges are founded on a biological imperative: to reproduce. And of course we can make moral criticisms about our animal behavior. But we should also appreciate why these instincts are there.
I left this comment at the Marcotte piece yesterday:
"If he's good enough to marry, he'll still be around when you're ready to make that leap."
Really? Why will he wait for possibly several years while you do the feminist-approved checklist? If he's "good enough to marry," do you think that is any chance that (a) he knows it and (b) so does another woman?
You assume that men have no will of their own, that just because you want a particular man to wait for you, he will wait. Just. Because. You. Want. It.
I was 24 when I married. My bride was a week shy of 22. That was in 1980 and 33 years later we're going stronger than ever. Three kids, all grown and gone, life is wonderful. It is impossible for me to imagine any way my life could have been better without her, and I love her beyond description.
But I absolutely guarantee that if she had declined to accept my ring I would have moved on and sought another woman to make my life with. The thought chills now, but I know it's true.
So yeah, ladies, do the career thing and all the other things that the feminists tell you. But when you're 35, wondering why the guy you truly loved 12 years before is now married with kids, and the most important man in your life is a cousin who lives two states away, remember: Amanda Marcotte told you that it was much more preferable that way. Drop her a note then to let her know how much you appreciate her advice.
I add here that most women (probably not Marcotte) understand that when a man offers a woman an engagement ring, and she turns it down, the relationship is ended. Done. Finished. Terminado. It is in fact the ultimate rejection a woman can make to a man.
I know there are exceptions, but trust me, ladies: when you tell a man you don't want to marry him, no matter the reason, he will move on, and pretty quickly, too.
Meanwhile, Matt the Moron is still desperately trying to prove that all BDSM is illegal in most places in the U.S., as he claimed yesterday.
Because, it Matt the Moron's leftist mind, it's still 1862.
Bagoh, I could never have imagined it happening until it happened. As for my husband, his best friend told someone else he'd gotten married by asking, "What do you think is the most unlikely thing that could possibly happen?" She answered, "[The Freehusand] got married!" And she was right.
In the meantime we just KNOW that eligible females are breaking down Mr.Wonderful's door.
"I think co-habiting sounds horrible."
I did it for 13 years. She had two young children and was recently divorced. Neither of us wanted to get married during that time. She wanted a man to help raise her kids, I wanted a family to care for and kids to raise. We weren't really in love, but we respected each other, and enjoyed being together, and especially being a family. We were all very close, but shortly after the kids graduated from high school, we amicably broke up, and all went our own ways. There was no fighting, no bad feelings. We all agreed it was what we wanted and were ready for. The kids are 30 and 26 now, and I still see her and both kids every single day. We have always worked at the same place together. We are still close friends, but don't see each other outside of work. I think it worked out just perfect.
@Saint Croix:
I believe whoresoftheinternet can be summed up as beta rage.
---Do not confuse red-pill truth-telling with rage. I just like calling a spade a spade---and, on the internet, no one knows you're a dog.
The rage will come, of course. As this civilization continues to decline from leftism, leftists will try rioting, looting, stealing, taxing, and dictatorship. As all leftists do.
And that's when the rage will come. Organized, discipline, old-school rage by the civilized against the uncivilized who attack and leech off them.
And the results are never pretty for the left.
There is no need to speculate whether the man of your dreams will be around when you're ready: He won't. John T. Molloy has done the marketing research and laid it all out in his book, "Why Men Marry Some Women and Not Others: The Fascinating Research That Can Land You the Husband of Your Dreams."
It boils down to this: The people who are marriage-minded get married. If they are in a relationship with somebody who is not marriage-minded, they dump them and find somebody who is. People who are not marriage-minded wind up in relationships going nowhere.
So, Feminists, if you put your career ahead of marriage, expect to pick from the dregs of the marriage barrel when you pass thirty.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-gfxjAaZg0
29/31 by Garfunkel and Oates
Althouse's feminist recirsive translation says
The woman is free to absorb the risk. I don't think that's Marcotte's brand of feminism at all.
Isn't Marcotte's brand of feminism to pass the risk on to the taxpayer?
I think you can wait as long as you want to get married, and still find a good partner. If you also want kids, you of course have a smaller window to get that done. Many people, like Althouse and Meade have found someone later on. My Mom was marred 4 times and each one was better than the previous. Her last at around 70 years old. They just keep dying on her. It's quite doable later on without kids. Women definitely have the most options earlier, and men later.
Oh, this is just female competition, which is always a lot slyer than the male equivalent.
The last thing a budding career spinster like Marcotte needs is for women ten years younger -- prettier, more fertile, flooding the room air with all the right pheromones -- paying attention to the successful older men Marcotte is graciously allowing to compete for her favor (tee hee).
Quite naturally she urges all her younger competitors to stay out of the marriage market. For their own good, of course!.
Because of the peculiarity of human mating habits, the biggest threat to the mating prospects of a thirtysomething career woman is the twentysomething non-career woman.
Not a huge surprise, then, that most older women use their social influence to try to persuade their younger competitors to stay off the market. Why don't you join a monastery, sweetie? Spend...oh...ten years or so deeply studying. General Electric does the same thing, when it tries to cut a deal with the government to raise regulatory barriers to entry for start-up firms. It's commonplace human competitivity.
We could try to credit McArdle and the Princeton mother for intellectual honesty, but let us note also that in both cases they gave their (sound) advice well after they themselves were safely off the market.
Funny fact, that our modern social mythology blinds us to the fact that women are no less willing than men to cut the throat of a "sister" to further their individual success.
Sad part is Manjaw Marcotte is married...to a herbish little bitch of a man who takes great joy in getting pegged by his subpar wife.
And yet she's still on the prowl...hmmm....could it be that left-wing men who are true believers (not like Clinton/Edwards, who only repeat feminist claptrap to get laid, but don't buy a word of it) can't satisfy their women in bed?
lmao. To ask the question is to answer it.
Enjoy the decline, peg-legs!
"You marry the person who is most available at the time when you are most vulnerable."
That's good. Steven Pinker, in one of his books (wish I could remember which one), put it differently but just as succinctly: "People marry the best person they can find who will settle for them." When you think of it from both sides it makes a lot of sense. A successful marriage is more likely if each partner feels he/she is lucky to have the other one.
Marcotte's bon mot is incrediby stupid. If he's good enough to marry, there will be plenty of competition for his hand, and you (the woman) would be a fool to expect him to be available very long.
I know a woman who graduated from Stanford before going to Duke medical school. After finishing her residency at UCLA she was hired to their staff as a research physian. Later she would become head of her department's residency program. She waited to get married and had to settle for a phys-ed from the University of Delaware. Me.
Oops, that should read phys-ed major.
...You all know that not every woman wants children, right?
Marcotte is claiming that if he's the *right* guy (meaning, he really really really loves you) he'll stick around indefinitely, until YOU make up your mind. Should he move on, well then, he *obviously* wasn't Mr. Right. Circular reasoning.
I'd call it Romance Novel reasoning.
Whoops. I got my Jessica Valenti mixed up with my Amanda Marcotte.
I'm not welcome at the feminist temple.
Scott M said, "To paraphrase Lynn Koplitz;"
I think you mean Tracy Smith. http://www.comedycentral.com/video-clips/gus02f/stand-up-tracy-smith--men-are-kleenex
Sorry for the correction, but I think Tracy's very funny and she deserves the credit.
The thing is... it's not 1958. Hasn't been even 1968 for a really long time. There is no longer the expectation that a woman must get married at all costs or she has no social position.
But feminists are still acting like there is something to strive against there. There's just not. Careers are not abandoned to have babies. And while it might be a good idea to finish school and get a job before having that baby, there is no reason at all that dating and sex is supportive of that while marriage and sex is the end of your aspirations.
Don't get married if you don't want to, don't get married to someone you don't like and respect and admire, don't have children if you don't want to (but make sure that's a mutual decision)... but I just can't see where *being with* someone you don't want to marry (unless it's an eye's open relationship like Bagoh described) or you're not sure you want to marry or you think might eventually decide he (or she) wants to marry you because it'd be just too much work to find someone else... I don't see where that has a point to it. Your love life is ruled by the path of least resistance and some person who you wouldn't chose consumes a decade of your life.
Living together is being married to someone you don't want to be married to (or you would be), but the criteria are different. It's "is he fun", not, "is he responsible." It's not evaluating "does he keep his things tidy" or "does she always run out of money but buy stuff anyway." or "Is he going to get irritated that I'm not as ambitious as he is?"
And like someone said... maturity is what you get when two "kids" make their own family together and learn to deal with all the day-to-day while they decide what their goals are and how to build lives together.
And if you don't meet someone you want to marry while you're young, society is okay with that.
Let's retranslate it back from feminist to "Marcottish":
"Sh*t this f%ck that and f$cking f*ck sh&t very god$*#% man on the F@c$ing planet especially those f34k-ing lacrosse players who were fu4king innocent but were a bunch of
!ucking nazi rapists anyhow because somehow that is possible in my sh8^^y, f&cking mind. Sh!t sh*t sh^t..."
yes = shallow
Of course people have free will. But biologically speaking, it makes sense that women would want to marry up.
As the Princeton Mom put it...
Men regularly marry women who are younger, less intelligent, less educated. It's amazing how forgiving men can be about a woman's lack of erudition, if she is exceptionally pretty.
My quibble would be that it's not "amazing," it's biology. Women are the baby-making machine. It makes sense that a man would seek the most attractive one he could find. That's how we marry up. It drives feminism crazy, but to a man, a 20-year-old cute waitress can be (and usually is) far more sexually attractive than a 50-year-old astronaut with a Harvard degree.
Feminism insists on imposing equality on everything, including sex itself. It's profoundly stupid. Judeo-Christianity has had far more success dealing with sexuality. For instance by requiring both sexes to love and marry one another. Feminism has sought to destroy patriarchy, but all they've really done is destroy marriage and fatherhood. Thus we're back to the animal model of single moms (or killing your offspring).
...You all know that not every woman wants children, right?
I think the sex urge is a reproductive urge. We can deny our urge to reproduce, but it's rather like denying our urge to have sex. It's doable, but kinda bizarre, too. It's like volunteering for extinction. Your line is going to die out with you. And that might be your mental plan, but your body probably has other ideas. Thus you might "forget" to use birth control, or complain that a condom "doesn't feel right."
Is Marcotte Maureen Dowd's sister?
I just looked for a man like my father. When I found him I married him as quickly as I could. At first I worried that he wasn't good enough for me. Now I thank God I was good enough for him.
It was the smartest thing I ever did. I might not have made such a smart choice if I'd spent time thinking like a feminist. They make everything too difficult and complicated.
I might be an independent woman, at least I don't read advice columns, and that is exactly the reason I would never have anything to do with anyone like ST. I'll never understand what Myrna saw in him, but she found something and made him very happy for a time. That makes her a hero in my eyes.
I'm with Freeman.
All the unmarried gals I have talked with as they get older begin to realize that the good guys are mostly already taken.
Another thought -- who would want to marry Marcotte? (Someone like Anthony Wiener? If Weiner were single. Which he is very lucky (?), I guess, all things considered, that he is not.)
Amanda Marcotte is a bitter, humorless spinster and her life won't be complete it she can't browbeat other females into following her superior choice in how to live Full Frontal Feminism.
She really hates her vagina.
Young women can measure their marriageability window by the slow closing of the Thigh Gap.
When the Gap is gone so is the Man.
I am capable of solving Every Problem.
"At first I worried that he wasn't good enough for me. Now I thank God I was good enough for him."
This might be the key to it all.
If more people were realistic about how hard they are to live with, they'd appreciate the person who is willing to put up with them a whole lot more than they do.
I mean... I could complain constantly that my husband doesn't get chores done or tasks taken care of (like getting rid of a dead car in the driveway) OR I can be thankful that he's not an uptight sort that gets bent out of shape because I'm not a great housekeeper.
I think that too many people have the delusion that they're a super-duper mate and the other person is full of fail.
It seems to me that If he's good enough to marry, he'll still be around when you're ready to make that leap. works pretty well with Pick Me Up On Your Way Down.
Ah, fantasy.
Here's the Patsy Cline version, which probably doesn't pass the Marcotte test:
Pick me up when dreams are shattered // when close friends just can't be found // because you know I'll be waiting // pick me up on your way down.
Women should learn that Men are trained in the Season -- and the Seasons are not College, First Job, First Love.
If your Team loses the first six games of the year there is obviously no Commitment to Winning -- you look to the next season.
Replace Ms.Quarterback of The Incomplete Pass. Try the Rookie.
Re: "I think that too many people have the delusion that they're a super-duper mate and the other person is full of fail."
Some of those "super-duper" ones may only have an open palm left "full of fail," as it were.
It explains the Kleenex box on the nightstand.
Or the sock.
Feminism has had a lot of great legal success in empowering women. And women enjoy their power, although there is some evidence that feminism has made their lives more miserable. Since divorce and abortion add to our misery, I would suggest feminist advances in divorce and abortion are largely responsible for this trend.
Nonetheless, it's really interesting how so many women refuse to identify as feminists.
I personally think it's because feminism has a perceived hostility to men and to babies. For instance, Amanda Marcotte is deeply disturbed. Throwing around words like "rape" when a teenager asks a supermodel out on a date.
And yet Marcotte is given a platform, and is treated like she is a serious thinker.
Connor Friedersdorf is careful to bow down before Marcotte's feminist ideology.
The problem isn't her awareness that there are privileges associated with being a straight, white male from an upper-middle-class upbringing, her belief that women as a class are subject to sexist cultural norms, or her belief that those norms are connected at some level to serious abuses. It would be a mistake to dismiss any of those priors.
Actually, her feminism is entirely the problem. A kid asks out a super-model, and Marcotte thinks "rape." To me, that's obviously a deep-rooted sexual problem. And instead of seeking help, or even self-awareness, feminism gives Marcotte an outlet for her rage. And rewards her behavior!
I think the mistake is in thinking that feminism has anything to offer women (or men!) in the 21st century. Its accomplished everything it needs to accomplish. In fact, since husbands and fathers have disappeared from the family, and we have killed numerous unwanted children, I would suggest feminism has gone quite a bit too far.
Conor Friedersdorf criticizes Marcotte, to be sure. But his criticism is dainty and circumspect. It stinks of chivalry. His ultimate concern is about her insult to the supermodel! I would suggest that the ease and sophistry with which Marcotte throws around the word "rape" is actually a danger to men, and a free society. I think Marcotte is a vile voice in our media, and she should be recognized as such.
BTW, Ann?
Amanda is convinced you are scared of her boobs in a classic bit of Twitter ageism:
"Love being in my 30s. Old enough for Ann Althouse to threaten me with infertility, young enough that I can still scare her by having boobs."
Engaged at 20, married at 23 a week after my college graduation, a father at 24, still together and going strong almost 30 years after we met. Two grown children. Enjoying the freedom of the empty nest. Can't really judge others, but we wouldn't have done it any other way.
Look at it this way, however hot a woman is a age 22, she's going to be less hot (usually quite a bit) at age 38. Meanwhile, her 25-30 year old competition is going to be just as available to a desirable 38 year old man. And I disagree with the idea that most 38year olds are minisculy less hot than they were at 22.
This brings to mind the way things were a hundred and fifty years ago, when established 38 year old men marrying 22 year old (or even 16 year old) women was absolutely normal. I wonder if that will ever happen again.
The rage will come, of course. As this civilization continues to decline from leftism, leftists will try rioting, looting, stealing, taxing, and dictatorship. As all leftists do.
And that's when the rage will come. Organized, discipline, old-school rage by the civilized against the uncivilized who attack and leech off them.
Counting on it, and preparing my kids for it.
Two thoughts, neither of them original:
"But, mistress, know yourself: down on your knees,
And thank heaven, fasting, for a good man's love:
For I must tell you friendly in your ear,
Sell when you can: you are not for all markets:" -- Rosalind, in Shakespeare's "As You Like It"
"Do you think that two sick, twisted trees ever made bonsai of each other?" -- Theodore Sturgeon, "Slow Sculpture"
And that's when the rage will come. Organized, discipline, old-school rage by the civilized against the uncivilized who attack and leech off them.
I hope so.
But I'm not holding my breath on it.
A commenter said going 8 knots was scary. Mandy may someday find 3 knots scary. Not hard. Not in. And not fertile.
A commenter said going 8 knots was scary. Mandy may someday find 3 knots scary. Not hard. Not in. And not fertile.
The happily married people I know realized immediately/quickly that THIS is the person I am going to marry. It's great when that's mutual.
And then there's the rest of us leftover unchosen people. The music stopped and there's no chairs left.
When you are ambivalent about the chair, you don't get one.
Marcotte is a feminist.
Marcotte is delusional.
But I repeat myself...
Marcotte first became prominent in the Duke Lacrosse case, claiming that anybody who protested the innocence of the accused was "rape-loving scum."
I hope she really apologized for that remark. Because it sounds like marcot is false rape reporting scum. And while rape is worse, accusing someone of false rape is nearly as bad.
"If he's good enough to marry, he'll still be around when you're ready to make that leap."
Wow. That's almost the diametric opposite of true. It's as close to mathematically untrue as a statement can be. It has the value of the statement "Blue is Orange."
While mating is highly subjective, most people (and almost every woman) would abstractly agree that the key attribute of someone "good enough to marry" is that they will NOT still be around when you're ready to make that leap.
That kind of stupid is dangerous.
Post a Comment